Incorrect, its not charging for access to Utopia; it is a queue that supporters can bypass. Free players can still fully access Utopia.
A server which you can pay to get in if its otherwise full is charging a premium access fee for that service. How is buying 100% access as opposed to having 2% free access (5 player limit you understand) not charging access?
Mojang said : "Can I give paying users priority access to my server? Yes, but you cannot restrict gameplay elements to specific users."
/tells Will be cross-server; I believe there may be some kind of plan for a group message, maybe. Simply not possible to change them to non-standard colors through a plugin. The server can only make visual changes that can be loaded on the individual client without extra files (such as a mod). Technically possible I suppose; but we would only be able to use vanilla minecraft sounds. not sure on that one :/
However, all players still have access to it and can carry the benefits to the other servers. The supporters just don't have to wait in line.
You are mixing 2 very different sections of the posts. the "Can not transfer over to other servers" is if the server is gated with a "pay for access". This server is NOT going to be pay for access. Everyone will have the ability to play on it. This is something I have planned to give to everyone. Core communication ability like this is something everyone deserves to have. While technically possible, its tricky and would require too much effort. Though I have some ideas to generalize the code for more than just this use, so it could happen one day. Same as above, but even with the system i talked about I dont think this would be worth the extra effort. As chicken said, just not possible on a technical level Not worth the effort to develop the feature. We have too many other fun ideas that would be better to work on. Playing a sound effect on Residence enter could be a decent cosmetic perk idea. This is possible too and not a bad idea.
You have to look at the INTENT of each rule and apply it to within the scope of what the rules intent is. You cannot use language (or examples) slated under one portion of the EULA, and try to apply it to a different portion of the EULA. As contract law says, statements under one section of a contract are not applicable to other sections unless explicitly indicated. The first thing that I did, was read thru the EULA about 12-15 times, and understand each sections 'intent', followed by reading others comments/clarifications. The EULA is a pretty straight forward 'contract' to read and understand. Anyhow, think of it this way. 1) Do free players currently have access to Utopia? (NO) 2) Will free players have access to Utopia in the near future? (YES) 3) Does EMC already have a system in place with soft/hard player limits? (YES) 4) Do 'paid' supporters have priority into servers? (YES) 5) Is priority access allowed under the new EULA? (YES) So, if players all have the same 'gameplay' on utopia, everybody can connect to it, and supporters have 'priority' access, where is any EULA violation? I am not seeing any violations within their strict language. Sure, and priority access is allowed, correct? Were the 2% charged for access? No? Then they were not charged for access, correct? Do all players connected have the same gameplay? And again, priority access is allowed, correct? Although I have been a supporter for near a year now, I hardly get on Utopia. Here is why: the exact same blocks and resources are in Utopia, that are in every other SMP server here. So the only 'real' benefit is that there are 'fewer' players on these servers as compared to every other SMP. Guess what, do you know where I choose to mine? SMP7 waste. Why? There is not really any 'benefit' mining on Utopia as compared to SMP7. Keep in mind that Utopia is not some magical place where there are fields of diamond ore floating about in the air waiting for players to collect (unless I really missed something???). It is just like any other SMP, but was geared (my opinion) to help protect players builds better as people paying IRL money have access to build, and as a slight benefit or 'thank you' for helping support EMC.
If we were to keep utopia the same way it is now, is that not technically legal if you moved the wild/waste/end/nether/netherwaste worlds to another server? /wild and /waste on utopia today would just be an alias for /server utopiawaste, etc. To my understanding, if it's a different server that they need to connect to then you should be able to regulate that in your own hands. It only doesn't let you have the restricted areas on the same server. Utopia could be paid for with one mid-range server for the wild/waste areas and a slightly cheaper server for the town.
What about we have to send videos of ourself saying: "There is no other Minecraft experience, only EMC" "Other MC servers is a lie, there is only EMC Through EMC, i gain strength Through strength, i gain rupees Through rupees i gain victory Through victory, my temptation to join anything else than EMC is broken EMC shall free me." 10 epic quotes = 1 day of gold supportship etc ?
For me, the proposed changes are simultaneously subtle and kind of flip things upside down at the same time. Supporters having separate areas to play in, receiving perks like Rupees, or separate chat has always seemed divisive to me. Yet you need to provide something that people want to fund the server. In my opinion this changes the role of the server from focusing on providing features that people are willing to pay for, to focusing on providing features that people are willing to pay for more of. This can be done by giving us access to all features along with the ability to tailor the level of entertainment we have access to instead of access or no access like it is currently now. The only advantages Utopia Wild has over the other servers is perpetual daylight and maybe the investment players have put into it. Neither makes enough of a difference in regard to Survival or economic gameplay that I think we should worry about eliminating them. For me the Utopia Wild is more of a curiosity than anything else compared to the other servers. We can't eliminate the perpetual daylight there either. The people who built there did so with the expectation that the lighting conditions at that time would not change at a later date. To take it away would potentially ruin them both aesthetically and physically. They also had reason to expect that the number of people with access to what they built there would be low or they may not have invested resources and built where they did in the first place. I think because of that, Aikar could justifiably treat the Utopia Wild as a Residence where only those who have had access in the past would have access going forward. But that is not what he is proposing and I think it would eventually turn it into a ghost town as old players stop logging in there. It is better to allow everyone there but in smaller numbers as long as access is not choked off to the point where it is no longer public. That way new players with new ideas and talents can be introduced there. For those who fear griefing as new players are allowed access to the Utopia Wild, we have rules against griefing on all the servers. In my own experience, not all acts of theft or griefing can be acted upon especially if you do not know when they took place. Once we have Wild Protections, it is possible that exceptions could be made for those areas that were developed in the Utopia Wild with the expectation that only small numbers of people would have access to them. AutumnRain's Outpost , for example, could be protected in such a way that alleviates worries about griefing, yet still would allow it to be useful to other players.
I see here that there is much discussion on this issue, and the recent changes made to the Server(s), the most important thing we all need to keep in mind is ... while it is nice to be able to offer our input, those who actually MAKE the decisions regarding the course of action(s) of the Server have the final say, and we should all expect them to be making the best choices possible given all the data collected and the experiences of the Server logs dictating things that must be done to make play better for all. And, at the end of the day, you get what you get and you don't get upset. If you have better ideas, go on out there and create something like this ... and sustain it, improve it, and remain in the Top 10 of pretty much every voting site out there. After reading Aikar's responses to my input, I went to the Donation page(s) to re-visit the levels of Donation and the perks associated with each. I ( me personally) came away from that page in a real dilemma. While I do feel that I should support the Empire because of what it provides for me, and am certainly financially able to do so, I found that even the highest level of Supporter didn't really offer me anything - again ME - personally. Then it occurred to me ... what could be offered that would cause my Donation? Things more tangible to the everyday game play for instance - Fly would be a great place to start ! Then the flood gates of possibilities opened ... what about /god? What about the ability to Teleport? Or to set multiple homes? Again, the possibilities are endless, going between Servers could even become a Donator Perk. Perhaps these gems have been shelved for some reason or another, but I know I'd drop $50 today if I could buy the /fly perk so I can continue my Castle in the Frontier without building scaffolding, or falling to my Death due to a sniping I do sense that many here come across as "attacking" those in charge, and at times, the responses do seem a bit defensive. Keep in mind, its YOUR bar-b-que ....and it tastes real good
I hate to kill your dreams, but /fly will likely never happen. It would be too difficult when it comes to reports and mods tracking possible hackers. Plus the EULA would explicitly prohibit your ideas because they all provide in game enhancements that would give the buyer a significant advantage.
Perhaps something like freecam? Like in nodus I believe, you can fly around but can't interact with anything while you are doing it.
What's the point though, if you can't vault items over? EULA basically would disallow you bringing in, or taking out materials. Yes this does cause development to revolve around crafting perks that benefit supporters, but we aim to get this out of the way to continue providing features/improvements for everyone
I think we'd need the definition of a 'server' to answer that. If a server is any individual machine running a copy of minecraft, then my idea is totally legal. If a server is an individual machine that may not be included in a network, then that renders my idea useless.
